Galatian Conundrums

[Absolutely]

As I understand it, the term "hyper-dispensationalism" pertains ONLY to those who hold to the idea that the Church which is His body started LATER in Acts (like Acts 9,13,18, or 28 [or whatever]); but "Pauline Dispensationalism" believes the Church which is His body started in Acts 2 (Eph1:20-23 WHEN) and does not fall under the "hyper-" banner.

So there is a distinction here. One can be "Pauline Dispensationalist" without falling under the "hyper-" category.

No,hyper pauline is when paul replaces Jesus as we see 2 members doing in here.
Hyper pauline needs certain things,such as cessationism,and the apostles preaching the law alongside Jesus.
All false doctrine by nature,carries an impossibility. Or several of them.
This is where we get non negotiable pillars of our faith. Our faith has a "starting place". That starting place is in what the early church saints died for.

Now,if Jesus who taught paul,also told him "please do not pay any attention to my words while incarnate,that was a danger to the gentiles"

That type of nonsense needs a premise. A pre determined starting place.
That is what we see here. The hyper-p's START with a bogus view. They need others to begin with them. Begin in a DOCTRINE OF false BELIEFS.
I have watched miles stafford and les feldick lay it out.
1) you need to believe the gospel of the kingdom is different than the gospel of paul.
You must start there.
Without that,the entire row of dominoes falls down.
2). One that is established ,we start our building. They tell you paul got the DIFFERENT gospel. The new gospel.

3) once 1&2 are established,there is a gold mine of cunning twists they very craftily weave into the scharade to complete the destruction of the words of Jesus,and half the new testament.


The first church was Jewish.
They had to adjust.
Paul laid out the adjustment of THE SAME GOSPEL. NO NEW GOSPEL.
Jesus knew the gospel was grace,not law centered.
Are we so stupid to think anywhere there is obedience,there is some "other way" that allows all disobedience to be anything other than transgression and consequences????

The hyper p's want you to belive in hyper grace. "Greasy grace".

Most of us know sin has cause and effect. We reap what we sow. Our walk is one of obedience. Jesus came to make us Holy,not teach us to be holy.
Temptation comes to break you from fellowship.
(Not necessarily or initially to break salvation)
Once you sin,you must repent.
You dont lose salvation. You lose fellowship. It strikes you in your intimacy with him.
IT BREAKS YOUR HEART. You don't "feel lost",you just know something is not there that once was.

Now,a hyper p is in a different mode. A mental mode. They see sin as kinda a tool. They sneer at anything of obedience,telling you,"obedience is law centered christianity...law of moses,gospel of the kingdom.paul taught the gospel of grace."
IOW, they are always forgiven,and if they sin it is so minor that God kinda chuckles,and they just look to heaven and laugh as they "acknowledge their total forgiveness"
Bliss. They walk in a false bliss,thinking paul abolished the consequences of sin by the cross.
To them consequences and obedience is kingdom gospel,false premise of Jesus that paul corrected. (Progressive revelation)

NOW WE SEE why the h-p's reject the 7 letters to the 7 churches.
Why 1&2 peter is rejected,james,and the red letters of the nt. All rejected.

All rejected under a false understanding of salvation,Jesus,and the obedience of a beliver.

 

[Grandpa]

Fully is a word that implies omniscience. The answer will be no, of course.

But do you agree that preaching to the Jews to accept Jesus as their promised Messiah and King, as promised by the OT prophets, does not require any knowledge of Jesus having to die?

Matthew 12:39-40
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.


How would you separate the Lord Jesus as Messiah, from the knowledge that He would die and be resurrected?

He told them it would happen.

 

[Absolutely]

GUOJING QUOTE;""Its remarkable how you show, time after time, you read Paul into everything, even in the OT""

That is profound. Profound that in your prism,it is paul,not Jesus pointed to as a antitype.

 

[Absolutely]

You can't help trolling can't you?

God the Father is distinct from God the Son here.

Oh wow,he is a troll too?
You got to be overwhelmed resorting to juvenile name calling.

You have a very sick mission sir.
Disenfranchising Jesus and peter.

 

[Absolutely]

Even when one states what scripture says, you also disagree?

No.
Most believers love the word.
We disagree with what you say it says.
Your corruption of the word is not scripture.
You are 100% hp prism.
That is perversion

 

[Guojing]

Matthew 12:39-40
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.


How would you separate the Lord Jesus as Messiah, from the knowledge that He would die and be resurrected?

He told them it would happen.

If you want to consider those vague hints as "preaching to them" that he would die and be resurrected to justify them from their sins, okay, you of course have the freedom to believe that.

 

[Absolutely]

i see..
here's some background material you need to catch up on:

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/christ-is-god.153694/

Oh the irony of GUOJING . Spreading false doctrine,name calling,wile pointing fingers at others.

Didn't he,Jesus, rebuke peter for saying he should not be sacrificed?

 

[Absolutely]

If you want to consider those vague hints as "preaching to them" that he would die and be resurrected to justify them from their sins, okay, you of course have the freedom to believe that.

Actually warring against your false doctrine.
Not casually believing differently.

 

[Grandpa]

If you want to consider those vague hints as "preaching to them" that he would die and be resurrected to justify them from their sins, okay, you of course have the freedom to believe that.

I'm just wondering how you think that preaching the Lord Jesus to the Jews as their Messiah and King you could POSSIBLY separate His Suffering and Death and consequent Resurrection?

Especially considering what the Prophets said about Him. And what the Lord Jesus told them about Himself.


I suppose you could just call all of it "vague hints" and continue in trying to have 2 gospels. One for Jews and one for Gentiles.

 

[Absolutely]

All of which proves Jesus was and is forever more, the promised Messiah in this life and the next.

BINGO!
Yes
No brainer
Gentiles grafted into Jewish messiah.
Not gentiles saved through pauls gospel.
Millions have been born agian,including myself with ZERO knowledge if paul,or the words of Paul.
Paul being a complete zero in their salvation.
Millions of gentiles saved through the messiah,the Jewish messiah,with no apostle new gospel within 500 miles.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

Romans 6:1-2, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

1 Corinthians 10:23, “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

amen

they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship​

(Galatians 2:9)​

​

Can two walk together, except they be agreed? ​

(Amos 3:3) ​

​

​

​

​

"the dead are raised" ​

But actually Paul said they were hypocrites, "did not walk in the truth of the gospel" Barnabas included:

Galatians 2:

13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel,

But we know the chosen disciples were in the kingdom:

Revelation 21:14-, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve disciples of the Lamb.”

 

[Absolutely]

Romans 6:1-2, "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

1 Corinthians 10:23, “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.


But actually Paul said they were hypocrites, "did not walk in the truth of the gospel" Barnabas included:

Galatians 2:

13 And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.

14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel,

But we know the chosen disciples were in the kingdom:

Revelation 21:14-, “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve disciples of the Lamb.”

...and if there were 2 gospels there would be no hypocrisy.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

...and if there were 2 gospels there would be no hypocrisy.

So you believe the disciples were hypocrites? Im confused with what you are saying here.


Galatians 2: 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel,

 

[Absolutely]

So you believe the disciples were hypocrites? Im confused with what you are saying here.


Galatians 2: 14 But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel,

I am saying paul correctly corrects their behavior.
Their behavior being wrong or paul would not have opposed it.
What is glarring in relation to the paulines,who say their are 2 gospels,is that if there was such a thing,why would paul bother to correct them since Jewish converts were "supposed to" behave like jews under the law.
I am saying the paulines are wrong on every single point they make.
This thread is so remarkable in that they are totally wrong,shown their error,then celebrate their ability to butcher the bible.

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

I am saying paul correctly corrects their behavior.
Their behavior being wrong or paul would not have opposed it.
What is glarring in relation to the paulines,who say their are 2 gospels,is that if there was such a thing,why would paul bother to correct them since Jewish converts were "supposed to" behave like jews under the law.
I am saying the paulines are wrong on every single point they make.
This thread is so remarkable in that they are totally wrong,shown their error,then celebrate their ability to butcher the bible.

However if it was over the Acts 15 decree Paul would be in error. If Peter didn't continue to eat just because Jews talked bad then Peter would be wrong.

However Paul would himself be a hypocrite in any case because Paul had Timothy circumcised on account of Jews:

Acts 16:1-3, “1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.”

Galatians 5:2, Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.”

So is not Paul guilty of the same hypocrisy?

and according to "if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" it is mocuh worse than simply eating.

Also I doubt Peter left eating with Gentiles simply because Jews said so, because Peter had kearned a lesson in Acts 10:

Acts 10:

19 And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.”

28 And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me.”

I suppose it was an issue with the Gentiles Peter was eating with were not conforming to this.

Acts 15:19-21, " 19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. 21 For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

Because if you read Galations in ch2 and the stuff directly dealing with Peter the "Jews" or "those ofthe circumcision" are in context James and his fellow brothers, the same ones that were led by the holy spirit to make the Acts 15 decree. As we know by Paul's own writing he sees no problem with meat sacrificed to idols:

1 Corinthians 8:7-8, "However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do."

 

[Guojing]

I'm just wondering how you think that preaching the Lord Jesus to the Jews as their Messiah and King you could POSSIBLY separate His Suffering and Death and consequent Resurrection?

Especially considering what the Prophets said about Him. And what the Lord Jesus told them about Himself.


I suppose you could just call all of it "vague hints" and continue in trying to have 2 gospels. One for Jews and one for Gentiles.

I don't understand your point, I am not separating anything here. Jesus is destined to die for the sins of mankind, that is true.

Why is the concept of progressive revelation so hard to understand? Just read the Bible literally and understand for yourself. God kept the divine plan for redeeming both Jews and Gentiles thru his death, a secret, until he revealed it to Paul after it happened.

In the meantime, you read about Jesus and the 12 preaching "the gospel" (Luke 9:6). If that divine plan is kept secret, and that is our gospel NOW, ask yourself, "What then is the gospel Jesus and the 12 were actually preaching from Matt-John"?

If you can still conclude in your heart that gospel also include preaching his death burial and resurrection for sins, I rest my case.

 

[PS]

I don't understand your point, I am not separating anything here. Jesus is destined to die for the sins of mankind, that is true.

Why is the concept of progressive revelation so hard to understand? Just read the Bible literally and understand for yourself. God kept the divine plan for redeeming both Jews and Gentiles thru his death, a secret, until he revealed it to Paul after it happened.

In the meantime, you read about Jesus and the 12 preaching "the gospel" (Luke 9:6). If that divine plan is kept secret, and that is our gospel NOW, ask yourself, "What then is the gospel Jesus and the 12 were actually preaching from Matt-John"?

If you can still conclude in your heart that gospel also include preaching his death burial and resurrection for sins, I rest my case.

Read Isaiah 53 and tell me if you can see Jesus there.

 

[Guojing]

Read Isaiah 53 and tell me if you can see Jesus there.

You mean peter, a Jew, rebuked Jesus for telling them he would die because Isaiah 55 was so obvious to him, as it is to you now?

 

[PS]

God kept the divine plan for redeeming both Jews and Gentiles thru his death, a secret, until he revealed it to Paul after it happened.

In the meantime, you read about Jesus and the 12 preaching "the gospel" (Luke 9:6). If that divine plan is kept secret, and that is our gospel NOW, ask yourself, "What then is the gospel Jesus and the 12 were actually preaching from Matt-John"?

If you can still conclude in your heart that gospel also include preaching his death burial and resurrection for sins, I rest my case.

Gods "divine plan" never was a secret. The Jews were told about the New Covenant and the death of their Saviour for their iniquities.

 

[Guojing]

Gods "divine plan" never was a secret. The Jews were told about the New Covenant and the death of their Saviour for their iniquities.

This phrase "Since the world began" has intrigued me recently. Performing a search in the KJV bible, here are some places where it appears.

Luke 1
67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 68Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,

Acts 3:21
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Both the Luke and Acts account are speaking of the same thing, which is how Jesus came as a promise from God to the Jews, to be their King, their Messiah, their redeemer. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom.

However, we know that the Jews rejected their Messiah for the final time in Acts 9, with the stoning of Stephen. It was at that time, Jesus raised Paul and revealed to him a secret, or a mystery, the Gospel of Grace.

Romans 16
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began

My question for reflection is this, the prophecy of Jesus being their King, the Gospel of the Kingdom, was spoken by God since the world began. Yet Paul in Romans revealed that there was also a mystery which was kept secret since the world began.

For those people who believe that both Gospels contain the same message, wouldn't this be some kind of contradiction? How do people still see both messages as the same?